This Saturday, March 29, starting at 8 p.m., 24 “global cities,” including Toronto, will be participating in “Earth Hour.” The aim is to encourage people to turn their lights off for an hour to promote awareness of man-made global warming.HERE IS MY ITINERARY:
8:00 p.m. — Turn off lights before leaving house — naked — mindful of George Monbiot’s warning in Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, that the campaign against global warming is a campaign in favour of austerity. In this light, I have decided to give up clothes, the manufacture of which is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
8:01 p.m. — Hug tree.
8:02 p.m. — Lecture next-door neighbour about his stupid idea of holding community barbecue to celebrate Earth Hour, noting burning charcoal, propane and natural gas to heat barbecues emits GHG. Angrily ask neighbour why he is cooking chicken and hamburger, given that meat production is a major source of GHG. Demand neighbour serve chicken and hamburger to guests raw, noting food poisoning is a small price to pay for preventing cataclysmic climate change and making the world safe for Al Gore.
fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);
8:05 p.m. — Run screaming from climate denier neighbour chasing me with spatula yelling “you !@$%$#$ idiot, get off my property!!!!”
8:10 p.m. — Hastily enter car, using keys strategically hidden for this purpose in hair. Drive to Hwy. 401 entrance ramp, refusing to turn on headlights in tribute to Earth Hour, ignoring frantic warnings by climate denier fellow motorists that my headlights are off.
8:15 p.m. — Travelling at 100 clicks per hour in centre lane of Hwy. 401, with no headlights, turn engine off in order to coast to stop, making important symbolic statement about car travel being a major contributor to global warming.
8:20 p.m. — Drive quickly away from 35-vehicle crash immediately behind me, caused by climate denier motorists foolishly driving on highway at speed limit with headlights on, attempting to avoid my stopped vehicle in centre lane with headlights off.
8:25 p.m. — Contact David Suzuki Foundation by cell phone, challenging them “to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing into jail” so-called environmentalists who self-righteously lecture everyone else about reducing their carbon footprint, while having fathered five children in two marriages, perhaps because they missed the Environment 101 class in university about Zero Population Growth.
8:30 p.m. — Contact Nanticoke coal-fired electricity-generating station by cell phone, pretending to be Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, demanding to know why GHG and pollution-spewing plant hasn’t been shut down as I promised voters in 2003. Challenged by switchboard operator to provide proof I really am Dalton McGuinty, I promise not to raise her taxes.
8:35 p.m. — Attempt to evade capture by climate denier Ontario Provincial Police officers chasing me down highway in cruisers, after climate denier Nanticoke switchboard operator contacts them complaining about some lunatic pretending to be the premier of Ontario.
8:40 p.m. — Place call to family from holding cell at OPP headquarters, asking them to come down and bail me out on numerous charges. Also ask them to bring clothes.
8:50 p.m. — Lecture climate denier OPP sergeant while leaving station that he should replace incandescent light bulbs in holding cell with fluorescent lighting to save planet.
9:00 p.m. — Return home. Take prescribed sedative. Go to bed.
Editor
Over the last year and a half I have had the opportunity to attend many council meetings dealing with wind farms. I have been called a Nimby several times, even though I am not directly affected, nor will I be, by any wind turbine installation. So, why was I called a Nimby? Could it be that I asked questions the govt. and the wind industry don’t want to answer, or can’t answer, without exposing the fraud.
The word Nimby was chosen to effectively remove the voice of, and belittle, a segment of society.
The word Nimby is being used in the same context and for the same purpose as the word “Nigger’ was used in the past. To marginalize people.
Years ago, Blacks were run off their land without compensation. The same thing is happening today. People who can no longer deal with the negative health affects of living near wind turbines are being forced to move, without compensation.
In most cases the people who are, or will be affected by a wind farm have no one to turn to for help. Not their council, upper levels of govt. or the media. They are alone in their misery, just as the Blacks were years ago. I know how these people feel because I have met many of them and they deserve better.
Sure, I have talked to people in the govt., the media and people on the street who agree with me and the other “Nimby’s” but are afraid to, or not allowed to speak out. Kind of reminds me of Black history.
When I was twelve, I’m 53 now, I got to experience “Nigger” first hand. A black family moved into my town, I believe they were the first. They had a son the same age as me and we became friends.
I remember walking down the street with him when some older guys started calling him “Nigger” and to go back where he came from. You could see the hurt in my friends eyes. What did he do wrong? Nothing. Did he do something to those calling him names? No. So, why did they call him names, because that is what Sheeple do.
Sheeple is a term of disparagement, a portmanteau created by combining the words “sheep” and “people“; a reference to herd mentality. It is often used to denote persons who acquiesce to authority, and thus undermine their own human individuality. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by authority figures, without processing it to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.
Ignorant people, with lazy minds is what allows govt. and media to continue to use propaganda instead of truth. Both govt. and marketing firms know this and use Sheeple to their advantage.
Sheeple let others think for them. So when the media and govt. tags someone or some group with a derogatory label, like Nimby, the Sheeple not only accept the tag, they use it.
The same thing has happened with “Global Warming”. Anyone, and that includes some of the best scientists in the world, are called Skeptics and Deniers.
These names are used to discredit and marginalize anyone who would dare question or attempt to engage in debate.
The way I see it, you are either a Sheeple or a Nigger.
Call me a Nigger.
They fought for their rights.
Instead of joining the Sheeple on Earth Day and turning out your lights. I suggest we turn on the lights, the music and celebrate the fact that
Nimby’s, Skeptics and Deniers still roam the earth.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share Thisnig·ger <img nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
Please spend some time educating yourself about renewable energy, the Green Movement and the New World Order. They are all connected.
Give your mind a well deserved workout, spend some time with a Nimby, Skeptic or a Denier. They won’t bite
Editor
Earth Day March 29th. Show Al Gore, David Suzuki, the UN and everyone else involved in the Global Warming Scam that you are on to their CON.
Turn your lights ON
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960’s and 70’s were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain.
There are not a lot of individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those that support global warming the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right this and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically sounded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).
Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change “debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” thrown in to undermine them.Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.
• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.
• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)
Ronaldo Schemidt, AFP, Getty ImagesAl Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.
Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism — and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy — can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.
The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors — the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, — not human sources are behind global warming.
The Washington Post’s first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group’s credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor — the Heartland Institute — received money from oil companies and health care corporations.
That’s standard fare, and partly fair, so that’s not what I am talking about.
The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post compared the NIPCC report to the IPCC’s famous report of last year.
After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: “While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”
First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn’t win the Physics Prize, for instance.
Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.
And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.
March 29th 2008 – all the sheep celebrate their stupidity in one huge, massive, world wide flock. The shepherds will smile that day as the sheep Baaaaaaaaaaa in unison. The herd mentality runs true and deep. The great Baaaaaaaaaaaaa will attempt to drown out the sound of reason.
Canada is in great peril, as are the freedoms of the people who call Canada home.
A Green Sticky Slime has attached its self to what used to be your brain. It’s not your fault really. You never saw it coming. Like mold it starts in a damp corner of your home barely noticeable. Over time it grows and spreads, but you still don’t notice it. It’s growing in dark damp places you never pay attention to – until it’s too late and your home has become uninhabitable.
Welcome to the NEW WORLD
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.
“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
And from the father of Kyoto, Maurice Strong
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Mark Jaccard’s one-man crusade to hook Canada up to a monster new global warming policy nightmare popped up again yesterday. This time he emerged in Ottawa with David Suzuki at a news conference that offered Canadians an economic miracle: Big new carbon taxes, lower income taxes, reduced carbon emissions, more government revenue, and a growing economy.
The all-in-one package is in a report by Prof. Jaccard, of Simon Fraser University, for the David Suzuki Foundation. Titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green, the report ran through some economic modelling exercises to see what might happen if Canada were to impose a tax on all carbon emissions of between $75 and $200 a tonne by 2020. Before any government gets to assessing the report — which doesn’t mention that a $200-a-tonne tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 50% to $1.60 a litre; nor does it do much to highlight the $45-billion in annual lost growth by 2020 — we suggest a tracking device be attached to Mr. Jaccard to monitor his role in the rise of carbon tax on the Canadian agenda.
When B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor’s budget last week announced a version of a carbon tax, Mr. Jaccard and his private research company, M.K. Jaccard and Associates, were the only authorities named. The B.C. plan, moreover, contained all the propaganda tricks Mr. Jaccard raised in the Suzuki version. The tax would raise billions, but voters should not worry because it would be “revenue neutral” and would be “recycled” back in tax cuts or direct payments. As a marketing ploy, the B.C. government said it would immediately send out $440-million in Carbon Tax Credit cheques to citizens, before the carbon tax was even imposed.
In his Suzuki report, Mr. Jaccard begins with a pithy epigraph: “The atmosphere can no longer be considered a carbon dump.” Turns out Mr. Jaccard is quoting himself and his coauthors, including one Jeffrey Simpson, from their book Hot Air. While short and emphatic, the quote is also pure rhetoric unhindered by fact. The atmosphere will continue to used as a dump so long as humans are allowed to exist.
Then the Suzuki report says that “several recent studies” show that a price on carbon is the best way to cut carbon emissions. Of two studies cited, one is from Mr. Jaccard. Reference is later made to recent carbon-tax research by the National Round Table on the Environment — research Mr. Jaccard had a hand in.
The progress of the carbon tax idea to yesterday, including the joint conference with Mr. Suzuki and the B.C. budget carbon tax gimmick, shows Mr. Jaccard has a way with policy makers, politicians and activists. So far he’s made no headway with the Harper Tories or Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose budget today was clearly the focal point behind the timing of these events.
The Jaccard carbon tax studies are gigantic exercises in economic modelling. Using models Mr. Jaccard controls, the study asks what would happen to the economy 12 years from now under different levels of carbon taxation and methods of government disposal of the cash raised. If the tax were $100 a tonne, governments would raise $62.5-billion; at $200, the tax take is $100-billion a year — three times what the government collected last year in GST. That would be bad for the economy, depending on how the government spent it. It would reduce carbon-based energy consumption, hurting growth. But if the government took that money and “recycled” it back into the economy in beneficial ways, the bad impact of the tax would be neutralized.
Well, not quite. Even Mr. Jaccard’s black box couldn’t come up with that much of a miracle. Different things happen, depending on the policy. If the government used 14% of the carbon tax money to subsidize green energy and carbon capture technology, gave 40% to industry and used the remaining 46% to reduce payroll or income or other taxes, then there might be offsetting benefits. But not enough to offset the losses from the tax, which would still leave the economy in the red by upwards of $45-billion a year, a figure that increases annually with the loss of compounding growth.
The Suzuki report spends a lot of time ventilating the idea that there might be a “double dividend” in a carbon tax. Bring in a tax, the government recycles it back to taxpayers, and then everybody collects an environmental dividend. In the end, though, the report concedes (most clearly in a footnote) that there is a growing consensus in economics that the prospect of such a double dividend is “weak.”
The Suzuki-Jaccard study is premised on the theories of Arthur C. Pigou, a 20th-century economist who believed you could use taxes to change behaviour. Mr. Jaccard calls his tax the “Pigovian carbon price.” The trouble with Pigovianism is that it requires revival of the ancient and discredited economic art of central planning, using taxes as substitute for prices. But a tax is not a market price. It’s a bureaucratic planning device–as Mr. Jaccard’s elaborate economic modellings prove. And it’s no way to run a market economy.
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it’s not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as “a drop in the bucket.” Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to “stock up on fur coats.”
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It’s way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it’s way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC – not to be confused with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) has been published by the Heartland Institute.
It has been described as the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.
The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate and is edited by S. Fred Singer. From the report’s Forward:
In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.
The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.
The report is highly critical of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released last year. From the N-IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM):
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index, which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.
While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.
In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).
The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.
The following is taken from the report’s Conclusions:
The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.
(…)
This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.
And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:
Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].
Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.
In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.
It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.
Contributors to the N-IPCC report are: Warren Anderson United States, Dennis Avery United States, Franco Battaglia Italy, Robert Carter Australia, Richard Courtney United Kingdom, Joseph d’Aleo United States, Fred Goldberg Sweden, Vincent Gray New Zealand, Kenneth Haapala United States, Klaus Heiss Austria, Craig Idso United States, Zbigniew Jaworowski Poland, Olavi Karner Estonia, Madhav Khandekar Canada, William Kininmonth Australia, Hans Labohm Netherlands, Christopher Monckton United Kingdom, Lubos Motl Czech Republic, Tom Segalstad Norway, S. Fred Singer United States, Dick Thoenes Netherlands, Anton Uriarte Spain, Gerd Weber Germany.
Editor
This is a damning report of the govt., the wind industry and the Provincial and Federal health departments.
“research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.
Health Canada has never done a study of the health affects of wind turbines on the health of the people. I’ve asked, as have many others, both the Provincial and Federal Health Ministries why there hasn’t been a health study conducted. Now we know.
They already know industrial wind turbines are being placed too close to people and they know they have negative affects. Once you have been run off your property, the ill affects you experienced living next to a 400 ft. high wind turbine will disappear. Using their logic, there is no need for a health study.
Daniel d’entremont and his family were forced from their home. The good news is their health is slowly returning to normal. They can’t live in their home any longer, but who cares about a home when you have your health.
Your government doesn’t give a damn, it’s that simple.
.
Wind farm raises health concerns; No long-term effect, says Kingston doctor
Posted By Jennifer Pritchett
Kingston’s public health department will lobby government for more research into the health effects of wind turbines.
Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health, says there hasn’t been enough monitoring done to determine whether they’re harmful.
Gemmill made the declaration at a board of health meeting this week in response to residents who live near the proposed site of a wind farm to be built on Wolfe Island.
The citizens had asked public health to assess the health risks associated with the turbines, but based on the information that is available, Gemmill said, there is nothing to indicate that wind turbines have any long-term effect on people’s health.
“We haven’t got a lot of evidence to go on right now,” said Gemmill. Gemmill said that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms.
As well, much of the research that is available, he said, doesn’t appear to come from reputable sources.
“Our conclusion is that while there may be some short-term concerns, this will not have a long-term health effect,” said Gemmill.
Board member Vicki Schmolka told the board that she wasn’t sure that she agreed with Gemmill’s conclusion. She indicated that she felt there are health concerns associated with the turbines that the board should investigate further.
“Seems to me what we’re really saying is that this person needs to move away and they’ll be OK,” she said.
Schmolka, who is also a city councillor, asked Gemmill if he was comfortable saying that there were definitively no long-term health effects from wind turbines.
“I’m saying it’s reversible,” he responded. “I know that people are bothered by this, but the question here is when do we become involved.”
According to the results of a new peer-reviewed study made available to us by the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, the connection between noise and coronary heart disease — particularly at night — is serious.
Wind energy ordinances must include a top limit for how much turbine noise can safely be added to our environment.
More than 15 million Americans currently have some form of coronary heart disease (CHD), which involves a narrowing of the small blood vessels that supply blood and oxygen to the heart. Risk factors for CHD include diabetes, high blood pressure, altered blood lipids, obesity, smoking, menopause, and inactivity.
To this list we can now add noise, thanks to a recent study and assessment of the evidence by the WHO Noise Environmental Burden on Disease working group.
“The new data indicate that noise pollution is causing more deaths from heart disease than was previously thought,” says working group member Deepak Prasher, a professor of audiology.
The working group compared households with abnormally high noise exposure with those with quieter homes. They also reviewed epidemiologic data on heart disease and hypertension, and then integrated these data.
“Many people become habituated to noise over time,” says Prasher. “The biological effects are imperceptible, so that even as you become accustomed to the noise, adverse physiological changes are nevertheless taking place, with potentially serious consequences to human health.”
Chronic high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline can lead to hypertension, stroke, heart failure, and immune problems. According to research, arousal associated with nighttime noise exposure increased blood and saliva concentrations of these hormones even during sleep.
“Taken together, recent epidemiologic data show us that noise is a major stressor that can influence health through the endocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems,” says Prasher.
The broader implications of chronic noise exposure also need to be considered.
“Noise pollution contributes not only to cardiovascular disease, but also to hearing loss, sleep disruption, social handicaps, diminished productivity, impaired teaching and learning, absenteeism, increased drug use, and accidents,” says physician Louis Hagler, who coauthored a review on noise pollution in the March 2007 Southern Medical Journal.
Hagler added, “The public health repercussions of increasing noise pollution for future generations could be immense.”
M. Nathaniel Mead
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
<img nigger
Death of Canada 